In November 2008, during their 43rd annual meeting in Quebec City,
Canadian canonists were asked to consider a formula for the uniform
registration of the baptism of children of same-sex unions. Msgr. Pedro
Lopez-Gallo of Vancouver cited the instance of a lesbian couple's
approaching a parish priest in his archdiocese to ask for baptism for
their child. The priest referred the matter to an archdiocesan official
who advised him to defer the baptism.

Two documents spell out basic Church legislation. First, a document
from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith--an Instruction on
Infant Baptism (Origins 10:474-48, 1980-1981); second, canon 868 sets
out two conditions for the celebration of baptism: the consent of the
parents (or at least one of them), and a realistic hope that the child
will be educated in the Catholic religion. Without these, baptism must
be deferred.

Some might interpret the canon as a refusal to administer the
sacrament. According to c. 213, Christ's faithful have a right to
be assisted by their pastors from the spiritual riches of the Church,
especially by the Word of God and the Sacraments. But the infant is not
yet one of the Christian faithful (c. 204).

While sacred ministers cannot refuse the sacraments to those who
request them, there are three conditions to be taken into account (c.
843 [section]1): the time must be opportune; the petitioners must be
properly disposed; and they must not be prohibited by law from receiving
them. Same-sex couples do not qualify. First, it is possible that they
are not the parents of the child and second, because of their lifestyle
they are not properly disposed so that there is little realistic hope
that the child will be reared in the Catholic faith. Of course, if the
child is at the point of death, the norms of c. 868 [section]2 apply.

In January 2006, the Judicial Vicar of the Archdiocese of Vancouver
sought the opinion of the Apostolic Nuncio in Canada. In his reply, the
nuncio stated: "The fact that a child may be raised by a homosexual
couple presents an obstacle to the Christian upbringing of the
child." The rite of Baptism indicates that the parents are
"the first teachers of their children in the ... faith, bearing
witness to the faith by what they say and do."

A same-sex couple even if "married" according to
standards of the state cannot be said to be in good standing with the
Church, even if a claim is made that they are living chastely. Their
civil union can be a cause of scandal or, at least, of confusion in a
parochial community. Church teaching would require their separation.

Adoption of children of same sex "marriage"

The question of adoption was raised. Canon 877 [section]3 is
interpreted to say that children who have been adopted in accordance
with civil law are considered to be the children of the person(s) who
has (have) adopted them. But this has always been understood in the
context of a heterosexual marriage. It was suggested that this canon
might have to be changed, as will those canons referring to freedom to
marry, gender identification, and others.

The Church's position has been consistently against the
adoption of children by same-sex parents. In 2003, then-Cardinal Joseph
Ratzinger, Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith
(CDF) wrote: "Allowing children to be adopted by persons in such
(homosexual) unions would actually mean doing violence to these children
in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place
them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human
development. This is gravely immoral." (CDF: "Considerations
Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between
Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003, Origins 33 [2003-2004] p.180)

In Canada, there are other considerations. For example, some
countries such as China restrict adoption of their children by
homosexuals. In spite of this, some Canadian same-sex couples have
adopted Chinese infants. One wonders how they were able to evade the
authorities.

Other countries have laws against artificial insemination of
lesbian partners. In Canada there are no such restrictions. In a 2007
ruling of the Ontario Court of Appeal, the Court recognized three
individuals as the parents of a five-year old boy: the two lesbian women
raising him (one of whom is the biological mother), and the biological
father who donated his sperm. (Court of Appeal for Ontario, AA vs BB
2007 Jan. 2, 2007, Docket C39998). To further complicate the matter,
with the widespread donation or sale of ova and sperm to various sperm
banks and fertility clinics how can one be certain, in the canonical
sense, who the real father is? The same may be asked of surrogate
mothers.

Problems with in-vitro fertilization

In vitro fertilization has resulted in an increasing number of
children being conceived and growing up without knowing the identity of
their biological fathers. According to the Irish Independent News (April
19, 2008) Kirk Maxey has fathered an estimated 200-400 children through
sperm donation over the years. Having since fathered a child for
himself, Maxey may well be concerned about all the children in his
vicinity who are totally unaware of their connection to him or his son.
We may visualize cases of incest or abnormal births due to innocent
sibling mating.

In the case of the Ontario man who donated his sperm and has now
been granted the status of legal parenthood, if he were to bring his
child to be baptized could the parish priest refuse to recognize his
paternity and prevent him from signing the register as the father of the
child? According to c.877[section]2 "The name of the father is to
be entered if his paternity is established by some public document or by
his own declaration in the presence of the parish priest and two
witnesses."

But there is another possibility not mentioned by Lopez-Gallo:
Canon 877[section]2 continues: (where it is not possible to enter the
name of the mother or the father) "the name of the baptised person
is to be registered without any indication of the name of the father or
of the parents."

The "right" to receive Sacraments

Msgr. Lopez-Gallo concludes that the right to receive the
Sacraments is not absolute, and is subject to certain limitations
(c.843[section]1). For example, although the right to marry is a natural
right, it may be restricted for serious reasons such as impotency, lack
of baptism, and the existence of a vow of celibacy.

The intention of the canonical legislator is never to give the
appearance of legitimacy to homosexual couples who pretend to be the
"parents" of the child to be baptized. It might even be
possible that they are seeking publicity under the pretext that the
Church is softening its stance toward homosexuality and homosexual
unions. "In those situations where homosexual unions have been
legally recognized by the state or have been given the legal status and
rights belonging to the marriage state, clear and emphatic opposition is
a duty." (CDF in Origins, June 3, 2003 op.cit) (One might stress
that even in marriage there is no natural right to sodomy or anal
sex--sex is not a recreational activity. Author),

Lopez-Gallo reminded us also that if a child is not baptized he or
she would not be eligible to attend a Catholic school in some places,
and this would make it more difficult to obtain instruction in the Faith
(if Catholic schools are still teaching the Faith--author).

However, any eventual baptism should not be construed as
legitimization of homosexual unions or persons who present themselves as
"parents." As the Apostolic Nuncio has written: homosexual
couples cannot pretend to enjoy those natural and inherent rights of
parenthood, and therefore should not have any role during the
celebration of Baptism, nor should they receive the special blessing
normally reserved for the father or mother, nor should they be
registered in the baptismal register."

In considering whether there is hope of the child's being
raised in the Catholic faith, it is not sufficient to rely on
grandparents, extended family or good Christian friends to circumvent
canon law. The parish priest must carefully evaluate circumstances,
realizing that in this highly mobile society, the child may be forced to
move with his 'family', away from the support he counted on.

In trying to promote a common policy, Lopez-Gallo asks how does a
parish priest respond? How can he be morally certain that there is a
realistic hope for the child?

The most reliable criterion would be if the couple were to
separate. Although a surrogate might be used to inculcate moral
principles in the child, a child learns best by example. Since not all
cases can be referred to the chancery; clear guidelines should be
established. Although Lopez-Gallo would prefer a special rite for these
special cases he recognizes that "liturgical books are to be
faithfully followed ... no one may on personal initiative add to, omit,
or alter anything in those books" (c. 846[section]1).

Listing conditions for possibly allowing such a baptism,
Lopez-Gallo stresses that if it is obvious that the parents are actively
promoting homosexual or legal adoption rights, prudence would demand
that baptism be deferred. He indicates further that such a baptism
should not be carried out during Sunday Mass or in the presence of other
children being baptized. The norms of c. 877 on registration of the
baptism should be followed.

An active question period followed. One person asked: "Are the
sins of the father to be visited on the sons?" He added that
denying baptism was penalizing the child. Without realizing it, he
reminded the group that homosexuals adopt boys, most likely to inculcate
in them their chosen lifestyle. Someone suggested that adoption of
children by homosexuals could be considered child abuse because it
deprived them of the attention and examples of a normal mother and
father, roles that God Himself had designed. Lopez-Gallo disagreed.

J. Huels then reminded the chairman that according to c. 110,
children who have been adopted in accordance with civil law are
considered to be the children of those who have adopted them.

Father Daniel Smilanic, President of the American Canon Law Society
suggested that we might have to sanate [Latin. cure] the civil law that
recognizes same sex unions. What he meant by that is not clear. How can
we sanate a law that should never have been passed?

Dr. Ferrari is a graduate of University of Toronto Faculty of
Pharmacy, of University of Western Ontario School of Medicine, and of
St. Paul University Faculty of Canon Law. Since retiring from the
Federal Public Service she has worked as a free-lance writer.

COPYRIGHT 2010 Catholic Insight
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.